On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Jan 21, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jan 21, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Rob Weir wrote: >>>> >>>>> Since this has come up recently, I'd like to point you all to a recent >>>>> thread on the legal-discuss list: >>>>> >>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser >>>>> >>>>> If you are not familiar with the SGA form, you can see it here: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt >>>>> >>>>> As you can see, it is a combined Corporate CLA and Software Grant >>>>> Agreement. Notice it does not speak of the Apache License, but it >>>>> does offer its own copyright and patent license. >>>>> >>>>> The license portion in question was this: >>>>> >>>>> "Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions >>>>> of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to >>>>> recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual, >>>>> worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable >>>>> copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, >>>>> publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute >>>>> Your Contributions and such derivative works." >>>>> >>>>> The question was: What does "software distributed by the Foundation" >>>>> mean? Does that mean only releases? Code in SVN? What exactly? >>>>> >>>>> As you can read in the archives, the response was that stuff in SVN is >>>>> considered "distributed by the Foundation", so the license of the SGA >>>>> applies to contributions made under SGA and checked into Subversion. >>>>> >>>>> But note also Roy's later clarifying response: >>>>> >>>>> "The dev subversion repo is not a means of distributing to the >>>>> "general public". It distributes to our self-selected development >>>>> teams that are expected to be aware of the state of the code being >>>>> distributed. >>>>> >>>>> When we distribute to the "general public", it is called a release." >>>>> >>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser >>>>> >>>>> That was the basis for the DISCLAIMER I put in the root of our >>>>> Subversion a couple of days ago: >>>>> >>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/DISCLAIMER >>>>> >>>>> I don't think this is anything new. We already know that code that >>>>> we're releasing requires careful review and verification of file >>>>> headers, LICENSE and NOTICE files, etc. That is part of what it means >>>>> to publish a release at Apache. But we have other stuff in Subversion >>>>> that we do not intend to include in a release, and for which we do not >>>>> make this effort. For example, /devtools, /ooo-site and /symphony. >>>> >>>> Agreed this follows the policy here: >>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html >>>> >>>> One subtle point here is the following: >>>> >>>> "If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included in it, >>>> the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either: >>>> • remove such notices, or >>>> • move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable >>>> project release, or >>>> • provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or >>>> relocation of the notices." >>>> >>>> The SGA does not give those rights. >>>> > > Until we address this subtle distinction we have two classes of committer on > this project. IBMers and others. This distinction needs to be eliminated / > minimized. > >>> >>> And perhaps a more subtle point (you seemed to miss it, for example) >>> is the section that says: >>> >>> "When must Apache projects comply with this policy? >>> >>> All releases created and distributed after November 1, 2006 must >>> comply with this policy." >>> >>> The source in the /symphony directory is not planned to be included in >>> any release, so I don't see this policy as applicable. > > I did not miss that at all. You are correct that it is not required by the > ASF. But because something is not required does not mean it should not be > done. > >>> >>>> If IBM will or has granted the ASF these specific rights then anyone from >>>> the project can make these changes as they move the files. But unless this >>>> is so it is only safe for an IBM employee listed on a CCLA to do it. That >>>> is the hang up as non-IBM project committers may be constrained from doing >>>> this until this matter is cleared up. >>>> >>> >>> That is a hypothetical issue, since no developers have stepped forward >>> to volunteer merging these files into the AOO 4.0 trunk. >>> >> >> And just in the spirit of brainstorming, if a project member is able >> to confirm that the SGA terms are sufficient for them to work with the >> code (and I think any reasonable reading would show that they are) >> then they can go ahead and help merge it and ignore the header cleanup >> question. > > Let's do this. Should any project contributor wish to work on a portion of > this code someone from IBM will handle these two tasks: > > (1) Add the Apache License 2.0 Header. > > (2) Move the IBM (and other) Copyrights to NOTICE. > > I'm not saying the whole tree, but on request for a reasonable number of > files. > >> >> But before we release AOO 4.0 we'll of course run a RAT scan and that >> will identify any issue. And so no one need worry about this further, >> I volunteer to fix any header inconsistencies that show up there >> before we release. >> >> OK? > > It may not be OK for some. It is a risk, better to do the changes before or > as the code goes into trunk or a release branch. >
Dave, I'm not asking you to speak for the universe, only for yourself. Do you want to help merge the Symphony code? Do you believe that you have insufficient rights to do this? Do you deny that my volunteering to update the headers in any release completely addresses the policy issue that you raised? Any other committer is free to speak for themselves on these questions. There is not need for you to guess what they may or may not think. -Rob > A supplemental note from IBM to the ASF secretary saying that there is no > objection to any Apache OpenOffice committer removing an IBM copyright in the > Symphony codebase to the NOTICE. With that in hand then we can all be free to > do the correct work with this wonderful codebase and contributions from two > of the most successful software corporations! > > Regards, > Dave > > >> >> -Rob >> >>> -Rob >>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> >>>> >
